Fuentes - evidence of wider offences destroyed?

First topic message reminder :

I'm shocked hear that Judge Julia Patricia Santamaria has ordered evidence in the form of blood samples that could have pointed to a broader event than cycling to be destroyed.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22353145

This just sounds perverse and does nothing to dispell concerns of wilder involvement. Still, when one thinks of what's been suggested in terms of Olympians etc, and suspicions of the integrity of the Spanish authorities, it isn't completely surprising to me. Regrettable though.

If CVAC provides the equivalent of a high-altitude training in a compressed time-frame, why is high-altitude training not being discussed, in a similar fashion as CVAC, a mechanical/electronic device.

I also see Djokovic being singled out, but there are many who use tents/hypobaric/hyperbaric chambers, like Stosur, Cornet and many other ATP players (trying to avoid player defensive corners as usual ).

kingraf wrote:When budget isnt an issue, you arent going to buy something that 80% as effective just because its seven times cheaper.

Exactly kingraf, I still don't know why the purchase price of this machine and its expense gets bandied about. We are told that 20 minute session is like 200 trip up and down a mountain and I booked 60 minutes for 75 dollars. There is no better access for djokovic in comparison to the rest of the tour. He doesn't carry one around in his carry on luggage.

Again Lydian, you claim that djokovic is suspect because he mentioned he used it, maybe he went quite because of the reaction he didn't expect and the hype that you yourself are feeding into. But the fact is if you were using it to mask blood doping you wouldn't say it under any circumstances, a person with even less than average intelligence could figure it out.

And you keep moving the goal posts, you state it worked for LA and he never tested positive for EPO yet he did 6 times so it is not a clear cut masking agent that works. He slept in the tent and didn't use the same technique as djokovic because it didn't even exist at the time. Now you claim he didn't test positive during his career, he didn't test positive for much during his career because we now find out he an intricate conspiracy to cover it up. I mean LA sleeps in an oxygen tent when he gave those frozen samples, the frozen samples 6 of them come up positive today, so the oxygen tent didn't work. It wasn't the dopers delight you make it out to be.

I didn't say it was a keynote source just that more people are discussing the lack of adequate doping tests in tennis, it was an example. You hinge a lot on the new passport system but experts (Don Caitlin) in that area remain unconvinced that tennis will do enough to make it work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/12/tennis-anti-doping-expert-drug-testing

Tennis already tests for EPO (erythropoietin, through urine) and HGH (human growth hormone, through blood), but though American Wayne Odesnik was caught bringing vials of HGH to Australia in 2010, Catlin said you would have to be verging on stupid to test positive for it.

"All you have to do is stop for a few hours and you won't get caught," he said

He says tennis just needs more tests, not more elaborate systems that have a long run in period to set up and then still more tests to work anyway.

laverfan wrote:If CVAC provides the equivalent of a high-altitude training in a compressed time-frame, why is high-altitude training not being discussed, in a similar fashion as CVAC, a mechanical/electronic device.

I also see Djokovic being singled out, but there are many who use tents/hypobaric/hyperbaric chambers, like Stosur, Cornet and many other ATP players (trying to avoid player defensive corners as usual ).

Because Novak is winning and Lydian doesn't like his game and frankly has been slow to acknowledge any improvement in his shots and the modern game in general. Quinton Rampage Jackson the UFC fighter uses this kind of stuff, so does phelps apparently, therefore why the special focus on the guy who came out freely and discussed it. Again he would have to be stupid to be using it as a masking agent and then advertise how he used this device. Now what are we going to require all athletes to live and train at or near sea level because if they live and train in the mountains it may or may not confuse an EPO test?

But the main answer to your question as to why Djoko is under scrutiny that he is because he beats Nadal so routinely and has overturned the Fedal dynasty. This is his cardinal sin in the eyes of many and since fedal are superior to mere mortals there must be something untowards going on.

lydian wrote:I didn't say it was a keynote source just that more people are discussing the lack of adequate doping tests in tennis, it was an example. You hinge a lot on the new passport system but experts (Don Caitlin) in that area remain unconvinced that tennis will do enough to make it work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/12/tennis-anti-doping-expert-drug-testing

Tennis already tests for EPO (erythropoietin, through urine) and HGH (human growth hormone, through blood), but though American Wayne Odesnik was caught bringing vials of HGH to Australia in 2010, Catlin said you would have to be verging on stupid to test positive for it.

"All you have to do is stop for a few hours and you won't get caught," he said

He says tennis just needs more tests, not more elaborate systems that have a long run in period to set up and then still more tests to work anyway.

Well all we can do is wait and see, the biopassport is a big step when it gets implemented. And I don't buy aspersions on any player unless you show me a dirty test result. On this I have been extremely consistent and have defended Nadal tooth and nail against the same attacks from fed fans and haters that I felt was all innuendo. That is why your charge that this is about djokovic and I am in denial is simply not true. I defended Nadal on this site and on others tooth nail to the point that emancipator claimed I was a super secret Nadal fan. So you see I don't like the innuendo, and whether intentionally or not you are feeding into it and directing at djoko the same way fed fans directed it at Nadal without any proof whatsoever. I am completely consistent, I will harshly criticize unsubstantiated innuendo until you give me a dirty test. The same standard I applied to Nadal for years, I apply to djokovic.

Basically the player you support isn't on drugs but his major rival is. That sums it up I feel.

Pretty much HB. Pity Im actually a Verdasco fan (Nadal a very good default, thus I have no player to make defamatory remarks about, instead all I can do is say things like, 'No one beats Verdasco 14 times in a row'

I'm open to the suggestion of any player gaining unfair advantage, but believe unfair advantage is a much bigger smoking gun when huge gains have been seen. I've really nothing more to add here, clearly the egg chamber was of no benefit to Djokovic as Socal has decided they're not effective.

Right, is there any tennis going on...

Lydian, I do not know which players (or indeed if any) dope but I think singling out one player with what does sound like innuendo is taking it in the wrong direction.

I personally take a pretty dim view of doping in sports, and I think the topic should be discussed - much more than it normally is - but I also think we should stay clear of pointing fingers at specific players. That will just result in fan wars (how would you react if similar innuendo was directed at your favorite players?) and the topic is too important for that.

In general, I think that tennis is in a relatively fortunate position because the skill set that makes tennis players successful is not as directly related to physicality as in some other sports. But clearly, with all the money at the top, there must be tremendous temptation to do what it takes to win. One thing that I think tennis could do to reduce the temptations is to move away from the emphasis on increased physicality. Even if say today's players are all clean, the physicality in today's game is bound to move the risk/reward ratio for the would-be cheats towards the cheating direction.

summerblues wrote:Lydian, I do not know which players (or indeed if any) dope but I think singling out one player with what does sound like innuendo is taking it in the wrong direction.

Innuendo? I'm not aware, although I may be wrong, of other players who have come out to admit to using these devices by saying "I think it really helps—not with muscle but more with recovery after an exhausting set". Surely Djokovic singled himself out for scrutiny with this admission? The WSJ article also states he was experimenting with the device in 2010 so it's something he was using for a while.

The article also states CVAC chief executive Allen Ruszkowski said a slew of other high-profile athletes use the Pod but often insist the company doesn't tell anyone, "because they feel it's a competitive advantage." That's what's been discussed here...whether CVAC provides an unfair competitive advantage?

lydian wrote:as I say, Djokovic has singled out himself.

Did Djokovic also suggest he was using it to cover his use of PEDs because the thing worked wonders for that?

Anyway, I think you may be on a mission here so I will probably leave you to that.

No he didn't say that, nor to be clear have I accused him of it. My issue is with the device, not the player. These devices are questionable in my opinion. Yes I agree competitive advantage in tennis is a good topic for discussion given its probably a bigger issue than just devices especially given current testing methods are under-performed and under-funded. Like I say, I've nothing more to add to this particular topic so also a good time to move on.

So BB it seems now is time to do a summing up comment to finish off this topic, (As Aragorn said to the king of the dead) WHAT SAY YOU?!?!

lydian wrote:I'm open to the suggestion of any player gaining unfair advantage, but believe unfair advantage is a much bigger smoking gun when huge gains have been seen. I've really nothing more to add here, clearly the egg chamber was of no benefit to Djokovic as Socal has decided they're not effective.

Right, is there any tennis going on...

Very bizarre post there I have not stated anything about how effective it is or is not. You are the one who claims it is twice as effective as blood doping and one twenty minute session is the equivalent of 200 trips up and down a mountain. Both these statements are completely unsupported. I don't know what efficacy it has but my gut instinct is that you are overstating its impact other than that I don't quantify it all to the specificity of 200 trips up and down a mountain for twenty minutes.

Henman Bill wrote:Basically the player you support isn't on drugs but his major rival is. That sums it up I feel.

That just about sums it up. Because a player talented enough to reach number three in the world at age 19 can't possibly get to number 1 at 24 without doping or unethical devices. Now I see why Lydian argued so vociferously that Novak did not improve in terms of hitting a tennis ball since he was 19. In his mind he wants to put to unfair advantages in fitness training no development as a ball striker. So djokovic is not better at hitting a tennis ball, he is just fitter. And in adittion all his fitness gains or most are due to the unethical magic egg.

Or possibly something more nefarious?

Just to qualify...the "twice as effective..." and "300 trips up/down a mountain" statements come from CVAC Systems, not me.

Socal, that last post is hogwash, this has nothing to do with Nadal vs Djokovic. Infact I couldn't care less if Nadal hardly beat Djokovic again as long as there are no suspicions on either front. What this thread in general shows (here's your Tolkien wrap up LS) is that drug testing in tennis is woefully inadequate whether its suspicion from Fuentes trial or the use of PE devices.

We shouldn't really be needing to have these discussions if there were comprehensive tests in and out of competition based on blood and urine samples. I'm suspicious of any player using unfair advantage where something unusual stands out...be it Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Federer or anyone else. The question is, where are the gaps, the issues and how can testing in tennis be made better? Another question is do slowing conditions put more pressure on players to seek unfair advantage?

Lydian can I still post? I want to respond to HB's comment.

Right my view is that most may be on drugs. I am suspicious of lots of players but will never categorically state that they are on drugs as I do not know their capabilities when they are clean and if they are doping. (This is more the case in cycling as its endurance levels etc).

But for tennis its different but if their performances change drastically i am more suspicious which could suggest drug use and no drug use.

E.g Im a feds fan, I am suspicious of him along with most of the top 10, and many many others.

One thing that is crucially being ignored in the EPO discussion is the age of players in discussion.

We are discussing players at their peaks, Federer circa 2003-2007, Djokovic circa 2008-2013, Murray (the Tank) circa 2008-2013, Nadal circa 2005-2011.

We are not discussing a 39+ year old Connors winning a slam beating 15-years-his-junior Courier.

Djokovic winning AO 2012, or for that matter Nadal losing AO 2012, did have two tough matches each, in Federer and Murray.

Is anyone here implying that Nadal v Federer was easier than Djokovic-Murray? Anyone who is, should a. look at the respective score-lines, and, b. should see the matches.

For example, the Federer BMR is an even more mysterious device, AFAIK.

Patrick McEnroe, the USTA's general manager of player development, says he's skeptical that any such contraption could have much impact on tennis performance. "I don't really take this stuff particularly seriously," says McEnroe, noting that Djokovic has not only improved his fitness this year but has also fixed key problems in his game, revamping his serve and developing a newly devastating forehand. "Maybe there are a few things that have helped (Djokovic) mentally, but let's remember that before he tried his gluten-free diet or went into a hyperbaric chamber he had already won a Grand Slam and beat Roger Federer."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532854267519860.html

also...

The pod Djokovic is using for the Open belongs to 38-year-old tennis pro Gordon Uehling III, who reached a career-high ranking of No. 925 on the ATP Tour in 2001 and now runs a tennis school called CourtSense at the Tenafly Racquet Club in Tenafly, N.J. He has also worked with rising American star Christina McHale, who is ranked No. 66 and beat the top-ranked Caroline Wozniacki in Cincinnati earlier this month.

PS: I know LS, that Federer had Mono circa 2008 (and have not forgotten the Tipsy 5-sets, Fascinating match - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ-iMgH5Jc4.

LuvSports! wrote:Lydian can I still post? I want to respond to HB's comment.

Right my view is that most may be on drugs. I am suspicious of lots of players but will never categorically state that they are on drugs as I do not know their capabilities when they are clean and if they are doping. (This is more the case in cycling as its endurance levels etc).

But for tennis its different but if their performances change drastically i am more suspicious which could suggest drug use and no drug use.

E.g Im a feds fan, I am suspicious of him along with most of the top 10, and many many others.

Why do you think most players are on drugs? Personally, I can see very little sign that many of them are on drugs. Tennis is not a particularly tough sport and the players seem to react physically as I would expect them to do.

I don't understand Laver's post at all unfortunately. What's the relevance of ages and peaks to this discussion?

In relation to the Australan Open 2012, Nadal's semi-final was clearly physically less gruelling and he had an extra days rest before the final! For Djokovic to still outlast him was astonishing. The only other occasion I watched with similar amazement was Rada's 2009 triumph.

laverfan wrote:One thing that is crucially being ignored in the EPO discussion is the age of players in discussion.

We are discussing players at their peaks, Federer circa 2003-2007, Djokovic circa 2008-2013, Murray (the Tank) circa 2008-2013, Nadal circa 2005-2011.

We are not discussing a 39+ year old Connors winning a slam beating 15-years-his-junior Courier.

Djokovic winning AO 2012, or for that matter Nadal losing AO 2012, did have two tough matches each, in Federer and Murray.

Is anyone here implying that Nadal v Federer was easier than Djokovic-Murray? Anyone who is, should a. look at the respective score-lines, and, b. should see the matches.

For example, the Federer BMR is an even more mysterious device, AFAIK.

Patrick McEnroe, the USTA's general manager of player development, says he's skeptical that any such contraption could have much impact on tennis performance. "I don't really take this stuff particularly seriously," says McEnroe, noting that Djokovic has not only improved his fitness this year but has also fixed key problems in his game, revamping his serve and developing a newly devastating forehand. "Maybe there are a few things that have helped (Djokovic) mentally, but let's remember that before he tried his gluten-free diet or went into a hyperbaric chamber he had already won a Grand Slam and beat Roger Federer."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532854267519860.html

also...

The pod Djokovic is using for the Open belongs to 38-year-old tennis pro Gordon Uehling III, who reached a career-high ranking of No. 925 on the ATP Tour in 2001 and now runs a tennis school called CourtSense at the Tenafly Racquet Club in Tenafly, N.J. He has also worked with rising American star Christina McHale, who is ranked No. 66 and beat the top-ranked Caroline Wozniacki in Cincinnati earlier this month.

PS: I know LS, that Federer had Mono circa 2008 (and have not forgotten the Tipsy 5-sets, Fascinating match - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ-iMgH5Jc4.

Agree with Pat McEnroe's comments picking out and saying the serve improved and so did the fh, it is actually what most commentators, Djokovic, and I have been saying about his marked improvement. Very good post, that is why I find it so odd that on this website these technical improvements are denied completely and it is all chalked up to fitness. And now the fitness improvement is credited to the egg. Just very strange logic that permeates on this site.

lydian wrote:Just to qualify...the "twice as effective..." and "300 trips up/down a mountain" statements come from CVAC Systems, not me.

Socal, that last post is hogwash, this has nothing to do with Nadal vs Djokovic. Infact I couldn't care less if Nadal hardly beat Djokovic again as long as there are no suspicions on either front. What this thread in general shows (here's your Tolkien wrap up LS) is that drug testing in tennis is woefully inadequate whether its suspicion from Fuentes trial or the use of PE devices.

We shouldn't really be needing to have these discussions if there were comprehensive tests in and out of competition based on blood and urine samples. I'm suspicious of any player using unfair advantage where something unusual stands out...be it Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Federer or anyone else. The question is, where are the gaps, the issues and how can testing in tennis be made better? Another question is do slowing conditions put more pressure on players to seek unfair advantage?

I have been on there site and I haven't seen those specific claims on the pages I have been or anywhere else. Not saying it isn't there just haven't seen it if you can provide a link for 200 times up and down a mountain and double as effective as blood doping I would like to see, I will look on CVAC's site again maybe I missed it there but I didn't see on the pages I went to or the articles I read.

The device itself doesn't seem to be an unfair advantage and that is why it isn't banned it isn't a substance and it is readily available to players on the tour. All of these things really are not in dispute.

Born Slippy wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:Lydian can I still post? I want to respond to HB's comment.

Right my view is that most may be on drugs. I am suspicious of lots of players but will never categorically state that they are on drugs as I do not know their capabilities when they are clean and if they are doping. (This is more the case in cycling as its endurance levels etc).

But for tennis its different but if their performances change drastically i am more suspicious which could suggest drug use and no drug use.

E.g Im a feds fan, I am suspicious of him along with most of the top 10, and many many others.

Why do you think most players are on drugs? Personally, I can see very little sign that many of them are on drugs. Tennis is not a particularly tough sport and the players seem to react physically as I would expect them to do.

I agree BS, I mean I am sure some people are using PEDs but I bet there is much more abuse in other sports because of the nature of tennis. Just like I would be surprised if a great deal of golfers and snooker players were using PEDs, I am sure the numbers in both these sports is even a fraction of what it is in tennis because of the difference in skill sets. I also don't know whether djoko or Nadal or anyone is or isn't using. Could be one of them is or isn't. But the physical demands of the game are not such that an extra bit of strength, speed, or endurance will do much for you at the end of the day it is the shots that matter. I think the number of the top 100, and this is just guess work is less than ten percent. That doesn't mean that improvements can't be made. I think we either make the system better and more vigilante or just move away from prohibition and move towards regulation and testing. The middle approach we currently have of testing, but inadequate testing is the worst of both worlds.

Born Slippy wrote:I don't understand Laver's post at all unfortunately. What's the relevance of ages and peaks to this discussion?

What I am pointing out is that these athletes are at the peak of their abilities, with their bodies trained for hours.

Born Slippy wrote:In relation to the Australan Open 2012, Nadal's semi-final was clearly physically less gruelling and he had an extra days rest before the final! For Djokovic to still outlast him was astonishing. The only other occasion I watched with similar amazement was Rada's 2009 triumph.

Nadal led 4-2 in last set and lost it at 7-5. Just a gentle reminder how bad it was for both - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhCzXwdUs_U

Does anyone remember Rome 2006?

I have many a time pointed out players like McEnroe, Wilander, ... and many others who have played 6+ hours matches? Anyone know who Horst Skoff is/was?

Posters seem to forget that Djokovic lost to Murray @Dubai 2012, and Isner @IW 2012 after AO 2012.

Federer after AO 2007, lost two in a row to Canas. And in 2010, after AO, he lost to Baghdatis and Berdych.

Nadal lost in Rotterdam (Murray) and Miami (Del Potro) after winning AO 2009.

socal1976 wrote:I have been on there site and I haven't seen those specific claims on the pages I have been or anywhere else. Not saying it isn't there just haven't seen it if you can provide a link for 200 times up and down a mountain and double as effective as blood doping I would like to see, I will look on CVAC's site again maybe I missed it there but I didn't see on the pages I went to or the articles I read.

While pod users don't do much beyond sitting while they are inside (cellphone use is permitted), CVAC Systems chief executive Allen Ruszkowski says the treatment seems to have many of the same effects on the body as intense exercise. He claims that the technology may be twice as effective at helping the body absorb oxygen as blood doping—a banned form of performance enhancement.

From the WSJ link that I quoted previously.

socal1976 wrote:The device itself doesn't seem to be an unfair advantage and that is why it isn't banned it isn't a substance and it is readily available to players on the tour. All of these things really are not in dispute.

In 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency ruled that such oxygen tents enhance performance and violate "the spirit of sport," but did not add them to the list of banned substances and methods, saying they would wait until further studies were conducted.

There is a definite advantage, but the financial wherewithal needed is a different matter altogether.

I would also recommend watching the embedded video in the WSJ link.

If ITF states that such devices (CVACs, Tents/Chambers) violate the spirit of the sport, the same thing was said about Nastase's Spaghetti.

The focus just on one player, who happens to be the ATP #1 now, is very biased, though.

Well thanks for providing the quote, I have to say that it has peaked my interest. I didn't say the evidence wasn't out there I just hadn't seen it myself. Laverfan, researcher extraordinaire.

Also Laverfan remember that Djoko broke down in USO 2012, so I get the point you are making and agree.

Researcher extraordinaire? All you had to do was Google, lol...

LF, you say there is a "definite advantage" with CVAC but then accuse me of bias when to my knowledge Djokovic has been the only one publicly stating he uses these devices. It's hard to avoid Djokovic when he's the only example!

Agree with BS, and as I also stated there was a big difference between the Nadal/Federer and Djokovic/Murray matches at AO12 plus Nadal had a days more rest. The ages aren't relevant, all these guys are of similar-ish age and Federer is still at an age where peak stamina is there...although recovery isn't probably quite as good as someone 6 years younger.

The long matches from the 70s and 80s are not comparable, the speed and power of today's tennis is completely different. Don't understand the relevance of the Federer and Nadal losses thereafter.

There's a bit of myth building going on here, so let's set a few things straight.

1) It seems to be becoming fair game to hint that Novak did not suffer breathing problems and allergies or that these have now miraculously gone completely.
Even during AO12, Novak suffered breathing problems. His was really struggling during the second week with hayfever and allergies. Check this interview.
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=77076

2) Nor did he suddenly go from quitter to ironman. By AO12, on which the whole 'ironman' thing is built, he hadn't retired from a breathing issue in almost 2 years.

3) If you watch that AO12 final in the 5th set, there are periods where Rafa is in the ascendancy and Novak is dead on his feet. Novak just squeaked over the line in a close match. It's not at all the case that Rafa was 'outlasted', he just lost. Both players were absolutely spent by the end.


There also seems to be an indictment against him that he suddenly went from number 3 to number 1, winning 3 slams in a year with a 70-6 match record. Surely this must be suspicious?

Funnily enough, in 2003 there was a Swiss player, who had never won a slam and was ranked number 3.

By the end of 2004, he'd won 4 slams (including 3 in a year) and was number 1 with a 74-6 match record.

Yet strangely nobody ever suggests that there is something odd about that. That was simply due to him getting everything together, working hard and hitting his prime years.

Well in my view we know two things;

* that Spain just took another giant step forwards in coming out as a corrupt country for PED. When the judiciary is seem to be complicit in cheating then I think it's pretty clear.

* That these CVAC devices appear to have two uses; the one advertised and the one discussed, being to cover EPO usage. As such, anyone using them is opening themselves up to suspicion.

I don't think anyone came out and accused Djokovic of anything, he emerged because everyone on this forum has witnessed the astonishing transformation from serial quitter to Superman, and its inevitable the thought may occur. He is the only one to have said he used them, and he's the only one who can outlast his two fittest rivals within 48 hours.

That said, there are counter reasons put forward for his improvement and that's fair enough. Nobody can prove anything.

Maybe he got bit by a radioactive spider?

bogbrush wrote:and he's the only one who can outlast his two fittest rivals within 48 hours.

He didn't outlast them, he just beat them.

Final set v Rafa was 7-5 and Rafa was a break up for some of it. It's not as if Rafa dropped dead whilst Novak waltzed home.

Murdoch, I don't take issue with your comments there, except to say that

* his allergy would remain. Indeed it's continued presence shows he's now playing through it.
* some players have never retired. Novak was a serial quitter or a length of time, and he appears still to suffer from the condition.
* every player breaks through, and breaking through doesn't figure in my thinking. Djokovic was always a.brilliant player tipped or the top.

Yes, he dint outlast him. That he could go toe to toe with him after Murray was astonishing. It was the USO later that year that Nadal was reduced to a cramper.

Nadal didnt play USO 2012...

bogbrush wrote:
* his allergy would remain. Indeed it's continued presence shows he's now playing through it.

Agreed.

bogbrush wrote:* some players have never retired. Novak was a serial quitter or a length of time, and he appears still to suffer from the condition.

I can't disagree with that. I would perhaps argue that the retirements were not unwise but the fact would still remain that Novak is retiring more than most (which actually is kind of an argument against the whole 'Iron Man' thing).

bogbrush wrote:* every player breaks through, and breaking through doesn't figure in my thinking. Djokovic was always a.brilliant player tipped or the top.

That point wasn't really aimed at you per se, but point taken.

bogbrush wrote:Yes, he dint outlast him. That he could go toe to toe with him after Murray was astonishing. It was the USO later that year that Nadal was reduced to a cramper.

The SF-F sequence of AO12 was impressive but we do need some context (and this isn't specifically at you, BB, more a general point):
1) The day after the Murray match he didn't get up until 3 and didn't even pick up a racquet. So he did everything possible to recover.

2) Although the final was 6 hours, we have to admit that a lot of that was taken up between points whilst both players tried to suck in some air! 25 seconds was more of a suggestion than a rule for that match.

So, although mighty impressive, it's not quite the minor miracle it's often presented as.

As for the 'relative' comparison:

3) Murray actually finished the SF stronger than Novak. Novak was 5-2 up in the final set but Andy fought back to 7-5.

4) Nadal was 4-2 and 30-15 up halfway through the 5th set when he missed an easy backhand and ended up being broken. If he makes that backhand, he's 40-15 up, probably wins the game, moves to 5-2 and probably wins the match.

So we were one missed backhand away from the story being "Djokovic runs out of steam in the final"!

The point of all of this rambling is that Novak is not leaving everyone for dead with his fitness. He's managed to snatch some narrow victories against other very fit players. The difference was not fitness, it was the usual tiny margins that often separate closely-matched players. I see nothing in these margins to suggest anything untoward is happening.

Points taken.

I think the Nadal lost the Aus Open final because thought going into the fifth, that all he had to do from that point was outlast Djoko, in comparison with the fourth set, in the fifth Nadal seemed to put a concerted effort in extending the rallies, Djokovic didnt out last Nadal, but he didnt go away either

kingraf wrote:I think the Nadal lost the Aus Open final because thought going into the fifth, that all he had to do from that point was outlast Djoko, in comparison with the fourth set, in the fifth Nadal seemed to put a concerted effort in extending the rallies, Djokovic didnt out last Nadal, but he didnt go away either

It nearly worked! As I recall, Rafa won a lot of the longer rallies. That missed backhand just gave Novak a window of opportunity and, I think, cost Rafa a bit of self-belief.

But even when Novak served for the match, Rafa fought him back to deuce.

That match, along with that US SF v Fed, could so easily have been defeats rather than victories.

lydian wrote:Researcher extraordinaire? All you had to do was Google, lol...

At least I did...

lydian wrote:LF, you say there is a "definite advantage" with CVAC but then accuse me of bias when to my knowledge Djokovic has been the only one publicly stating he uses these devices. It's hard to avoid Djokovic when he's the only example!

I beg to differ. There is an Oxygen Tent in Spain, bought by RFET money. CVAC user, yes, but he is not the only one.

lydian wrote:Agree with BS, and as I also stated there was a big difference between the Nadal/Federer and Djokovic/Murray matches at AO12 plus Nadal had a days more rest. The ages aren't relevant, all these guys are of similar-ish age and Federer is still at an age where peak stamina is there...although recovery isn't probably quite as good as someone 6 years younger.

CVAC (and it's illegal cousin EPO) allow quicker recovery, correct?

lydian wrote:The long matches from the 70s and 80s are not comparable, the speed and power of today's tennis is completely different.

There are technical differences in equipment, but the human endurance aspect has not changed that significantly, has it?

lydian wrote:Don't understand the relevance of the Federer and Nadal losses thereafter.

The point I was making was that all such gadgets/toys do not make a specific player invincible. The thrust that CVAC has somehow put a spider on the back of Djokovic (thanks BB) and a capital S (on his chest) is highly questionable, as such loses indicate.

Should I also suspect the players who beat these S(upermen)?

socal1976 wrote:

emancipator wrote:So how did he suddenly become the Screechinator if it wasn't the operation that sorted out his breathing problem?

You have to admit its kinda suspect how he went from being the biggest quitter on tour to outlasting Rafa in the space of a few months.

Was it a space of a few months, did you see the USO 2010, Madrid 2009. His breathing problems were sporadic sometimes he would huff and puff in the first set sometimes he could play for 4 hours. And we know again, very well documented that a change in diet also cleared up a lot of problems. Not to mention that if you had asthma and allergies, I have very bad allergies and had asthma as a child. Sometimes they go away as you grow older. Sometimes they develop all of sudden out of nowhere it seems. In my teens I required an inhaler, by my mid twenties I threw it away and haven't needed one for decade or more now. I had a friend who loved nutella as a kid, one day in his early 30s we had to rush him to the hospital after he ate a bar that had hazelnut in it. He almost died of an allergy he acquired in the middle of his life, his face swelled up like a balloon and his breathing passage swelled up till he couldn't breathe. Allergies can come and they go, I know this because I had them, and also rushed my friend to the hospital and the doctor said he had a late occurring food allergy that developed all of sudden when it had not existed before.

Allergies are quite complicated- you are unlikely to develop a type 1 (acute, IgE mediated) allergic response late in life unless you literally had no exposure to things and the more you are exposed the better the allergy tends to get. Type 4 allergies are the opposite but they pretty much can't have a respiratory effect. What is it that Novak suffers from? Asthma (bad asthma) could be exacerbated by other factors and thus flare up or fluctuate in your 20s.

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:Researcher extraordinaire? All you had to do was Google, lol...

At least I did...

lydian wrote:LF, you say there is a "definite advantage" with CVAC but then accuse me of bias when to my knowledge Djokovic has been the only one publicly stating he uses these devices. It's hard to avoid Djokovic when he's the only example!

I beg to differ. There is an Oxygen Tent in Spain, bought by RFET money. CVAC user, yes, but he is not the only one.

lydian wrote:Agree with BS, and as I also stated there was a big difference between the Nadal/Federer and Djokovic/Murray matches at AO12 plus Nadal had a days more rest. The ages aren't relevant, all these guys are of similar-ish age and Federer is still at an age where peak stamina is there...although recovery isn't probably quite as good as someone 6 years younger.

CVAC (and it's illegal cousin EPO) allow quicker recovery, correct?

lydian wrote:The long matches from the 70s and 80s are not comparable, the speed and power of today's tennis is completely different.

There are technical differences in equipment, but the human endurance aspect has not changed that significantly, has it?

lydian wrote:Don't understand the relevance of the Federer and Nadal losses thereafter.

The point I was making was that all such gadgets/toys do not make a specific player invincible. The thrust that CVAC has somehow put a spider on the back of Djokovic (thanks BB) and a capital S (on his chest) is highly questionable, as such loses indicate.

Should I also suspect the players who beat these S(upermen)?

I think it's fair to say, with better scientific knowledge of optimal training and facilities and the time players have to dedicate to the game and to being fit for it, that the endurance aspect has changed dramatically. Otherwise there wouldn't be new marathon records or improvements in other endurance events (unless they are all down to PEDs)

ChequeredJersey wrote:I think it's fair to say, with better scientific knowledge of optimal training and facilities and the time players have to dedicate to the game and to being fit for it, that the endurance aspect has changed dramatically. Otherwise there wouldn't be new marathon records or improvements in other endurance events (unless they are all down to PEDs)

Were Lendl, Borg and McEnroe not the precursors to Muster, Nadal, Federer, Murray, Djokovic? They were pretty fit given the environment and available resources.

So what you are saying is that Roger Bannister's records and Usain Bolt's are not a progression, but need to be measured from the perspective of better training regimes?

So Miguel Indurain winning TdF was less well trained than say, Armstrong?

I disagree, CJ.

Medical advances are not the only improvements. Racquets, strings, CVAC/Tents (instead of going to the mountain, etc. ) - there is no quantum leap. And the best of all, all players can now afford access to the CVAC, as SoCal has shown.

Lendl and Borg were very fit tennis players. J-Mac? Well, not quite a mountain of a man. Obviously was very fit, but doesnt strike as a player who could dominate tests of Fitness or Strength, Hence the relative lack of clay court success

@KingRaf... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_tennis_match_records

There is no sign of Borg or Lendl in this list, yet McEnroe played two. One in 1982 (v Wilander), another in 1987 ( v Becker; 3 years after his 1984 exploits).

There are some very interesting 5+ hour matches in this list.

You can always make the argument that Lendl and Borg did not need as much time to beat their respective opponents, but they have some interesting 5-set records as well.

ChequeredJersey is correct the level of knowledge about fitness that we hae today and the advanced techniques have lifted the bar. And I think this is positive for the game as it is probably one of the reasons we have seen players be able to stick around in their thirtes and still be so effective.

@SoCal... Less so on fitness, but more so on injury management, is where medical advances make a much significant difference. Both factors impact longevity.

There are quite a few exceptions like Rosewall, Agassi. Stepanek, Haas on one side vs Norman and others.

It is very tough to say it is just advances in a single aspect that make it possible.

That is why focussing on just fitness, IMVHO, is too narrow. Another example is strings where more shots per point can be played.

Yes, so tech, ball & surface conditions drive longer ralleys. This places more onus on stamina and recovery than ever before. It's still a skill based game but the swing to fitness puts pressure on seeking competitive advantage across all areas - not just strings and technique.

Laverfan, you can see from other sports like rugby the impact (both negative and positive) that training advances have had on physique and fitness and the same in Tennis. The opposite seems to be implying that rather than not training as well, the likes of Bannister were not trying as hard as those who have bettered their achievements and that is a bit insulting! Unless you think there has been a significant genetic change in the human race in 50 years?

lydian wrote:Yes, so tech, ball & surface conditions drive longer ralleys. This places more onus on stamina and recovery than ever before. It's still a skill based game but the swing to fitness puts pressure on seeking competitive advantage across all areas - not just strings and technique.

The swing towards fitness started with Laver or even before, with Tilden.

Last time, on another forum, I used the comparison below to show that Djokovic can be a suspect for illegal enhancements. I can use the same example to point fingers at the other player in this equation, i.e., Nadal in 2009. Players under suspicion had less rest, than their opponents.

AO 2012 - Djokovic

S Andy Murray (GBR) 4 W 6-3, 3-6, 6-7(4), 6-1, 7-5
W Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 W 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-5

AO 2009 - Nadal

S Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 15 W 6-7(4), 6-4, 7-6(2), 6-7(1), 6-4
W Roger Federer (SUI) 2 W 7-5, 3-6, 7-6(3), 3-6, 6-2

And, AFAIK, Djokovic publicly uses CVAC, but what does Nadal use, an Oxygen tent.
We need to be very careful when pointing fingers.

May I also point out to history on what happened to Nadal post AO 2009?

My point is that suspicion is never a one-way street. Just look at post 9/11 paranoia and fear that grips the US. Perhaps a bit out of context, but a good illustration.

Someone, a wise-person I know, says, that when one points a finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at themselves.

I, personally, dislike the idea of suspecting one and not another.

ChequeredJersey wrote:The opposite seems to be implying that rather than not training as well, the likes of Bannister were not trying as hard as those who have bettered their achievements and that is a bit insulting!

The objective is to win, not by so much that it rouses suspicions, especially if done consistently. There is an interview with Bolt and when he was specifically asked (i think by Carl Lewis in London 2012) whether he intentionally slowed down as he got close to the finish line. He just smiled, IIRC.

There is no universal, ATP-prescribed training regimen for an ATP professional. Each player is free to chose their own program. Competition also drives the quest for fitness, legal or illegal.

I have to say I agree completely Novak did not outlast Murray and nadal he just beat them in a few big points over the course of the match. Lets remember that last year djokovic broke down and cramped up against Murray at the US Open. At the end of semi against Andy in 2012 Andy looked stronger physically. This is unfortunately part of the bias involved to Novak. If Novak wins a clutch 5 setter it is always portrayed as a victory of fitness of Novak outlasting his opponent. Great point as well that prior to 2011 he had gone s very long time with not quitting a match.

I still am not convinced that this egg chamber is an effective cover for EPO use the one case we know of LA was caught for EPO use when advised to use oxygen treatments. This is somehow taken as gospel and it does not seem to be the case against modern testing

It's a hi-tech altitude tent. Nothing really to see there.

EPO can affect hematocrit far more profoundly than any of these things. Hyperbaric chambers and indeed going to live and train at altitude have a similar effect but the response is always limited by natural physiology.

EPO has no such drawback. You want more effect, you take more. Once you've spent a while at say 5000ft, you won't improve your hematocrit anymore unless you decide to go higher.